:
CRAIG STEDMAN, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY :
AS LANCASTER COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, :
:
Petitioner, : No. 146 MD 2019
v. :
:
LANCASTER COUNTY BOARD OF :
COMMISSIONERS; JOSHUA PARSONS, IN HIS :
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CHAIRMAN OF THE :
LANCASTER COUNTY BOARD OF :
COMMISSIONERS; DENNIS STUCKEY, IN HIS :
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS VICE-CHAIRMAN OF :
THE LANCASTER COUNTY BOARD OF :
COMMISSIONERS; CRAIG LEHMAN, IN HIS :
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS LANCASTER COUNTY :
COMMISSIONER, :
:
Respondents, :
:
JOSHUA SHAPIRO, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY :
AS PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY GENERAL; and :
BRIAN HURTER, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS :
LANCASTER COUNTY CONTROLLER, :
:
Indispensable/Non-adverse :
Respondents. :
NOTICE TO PLEAD
i
DENNIS STUCKEY, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS VICE-
CHAIRMAN OF THE LANCASTER COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
ii
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
:
CRAIG STEDMAN, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY :
AS LANCASTER COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, :
:
Petitioner, : No. 146 MD 2019
v. :
:
LANCASTER COUNTY BOARD OF :
COMMISSIONERS; JOSHUA PARSONS, IN HIS :
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CHAIRMAN OF THE :
LANCASTER COUNTY BOARD OF :
COMMISSIONERS; DENNIS STUCKEY, IN HIS :
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS VICE-CHAIRMAN OF :
THE LANCASTER COUNTY BOARD OF :
COMMISSIONERS; CRAIG LEHMAN, IN HIS :
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS LANCASTER COUNTY :
COMMISSIONER, :
:
Respondents, :
:
JOSHUA SHAPIRO, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY :
AS PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY GENERAL; and :
BRIAN HURTER, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS :
LANCASTER COUNTY CONTROLLER, :
:
Indispensable/Non-adverse :
Respondents. :
hereby bring this petition for review in the nature of a complaint for
declaratory and injunctive relief, and in support thereof, avers as
follows:
I. INTRODUCTION
Attorney.
the County. Moreover, if the Court grants the relief requested in this
continue to be, as they have for years, fully and appropriately vetted by
2
those parties designated by the General Assembly to review the
expenditures and ensure that the law is followed. That is, District
Attorney Stedman is not trying to hide anything with the relief sought
to do so.
intimidate and silence District Attorney Stedman and prevent him from
and legal costs related to his defense of the statutory and constitutional
3
tactic is allowed to stand, it gives the Commissioners the power to
II. JURISDICTION
§ 761(a)(1).
in Counts II and III because they are related to and closely intertwined
with the claims within the Court’s original jurisdiction set forth in
4
rights and authority under various statutes and the Pennsylvania
Constitution.
5
Section 4 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Commissioner Stuckey
Commissioners.)
6
15. Respondent Brian Hurter is the duly elected Lancaster
Counts I and III of this action in that the declaration of rights sought by
5808. The laws produced by Act 13 were later slightly amended with
7
18. One of the key aspects of Act 13 was its provision concerning
forfeiture under the law are now “transferred to the custody of the
operating fund, without restriction, a like amount for the use of the
21. The funds then received by the district attorney, after being
22. The law further provides that those funds are then
8
entity having budgetary control shall not anticipate future forfeitures or
23. Not only are the funds quarantined from county authority
consideration after being turned over to the district attorney, they are
also beyond the county’s control, with the law stating the district
§ 5803(i).
24. While the district attorney has sole control over the
9
26. County Controller Hurter has annually audited District
Attorney Stedman’s use of asset forfeiture funds and has found him to
10
31. The vehicle was to be used, and has been used, by District
asset forfeiture funds in the County and did not lease the vehicle using
Exhibit A.
Attorney Stedman sole control over the forfeiture funds and which give
authority over the use of such funds, the Lancaster County Board of
right to be involved.
11
35. Specifically, the Lancaster County Commissioners have
insisted that the Toyota lease agreement should have been subjected to
Section 508 and personal property for county officers and agencies.”
investigate all matters concerning the vehicle lease; that is, they intend
40. Indeed, the General Assembly made clear that the sole event
12
13 funds back to a district attorney after they are deposited with the
Commissioners’ control.
attorney, shall only be “utilized by the district attorney” and the county
§ 5803(g), (i).
13
44. Further, the purported investigatory powers the
March 7, 2019. True and accurate copies of the March 5th and March 7th
14
49. But, in response to those letters, the County Commissioners
have remained steadfast and resolute in their belief that they have the
attached as Exhibit E.
A true and accurate copy of the March 22nd Email Chain is attached as
Exhibit F.
2019, which expressly states that Act 13 expenditures have always been
since the inception of the [Drug Task Force]” subject to the Controller’s
15
from the County Commissioners. A true and accurate copy of the
G.
Exhibit G at 2.
16
B. Employment disputes
Commissioners are also violating his official capacity rights under The
County Code.
independent county officer, see Pa. Const. Art. IX, § 4, are exclusively
17
(2) Employment disputes between District Attorney
Stedman and Lancaster County Commissioners
with pay, an assistant district attorney within his office, exercising his
Attorney Stedman.
Attorney Stedman for both the suspension and the reinstatement of the
employee.
that, as with their attempts to audit and investigate his use of Act 13
18
“Final Summary” on March 13, 2019, in which, utterly contrary to The
A true and accurate copy of the March 13th Final Summary is attached
as Exhibit I.
that a local news outlet was able to associate the allegations in the
Office.
19
67. The Commissioners’ investigation of District Attorney
authority of District Attorney Stedman under The County Code and the
involved.
20
attempting to intimidate and silence him by seeking to defund his
encroachments.
Commissioners.
1245, 1251 (Pa. 1995) (quoting Beckert v. Warren, 439 A.2d 638, 642
21
74. “The very genius of our tripartite Government is based upon
(quoting Commonwealth ex rel. Carroll v. Tate, 274 A.2d 193, 197 (Pa.
litigant cannot recover counsel fees from an adverse party where one
1252.
76. Indeed, our Supreme Court has recognized that one branch
22
as here, he is defending his independent, constitutional role in the
adopt a final budget by December 31st of each year. See 16 P.S. §§ 1780-
85.
spent. See Yost v. McKnight, 865 A.2d 979, 986 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005)
23
(“[T]he District Attorney is an elected officer of the county … and may
enter into such contracts … for those services for which he has funds in
his budget.”).
fees and legal costs “includes, but is not limited to, any pre-litigation
made clear that their own legal fees could continue to be paid, stating:
24
“[t]his position does not limit or preclude, in any way, the County’s
attorneys’ fees and legal costs already have been budgeted and
25
Attorney Stedman spends those budgeted funds. See Yost, 865 A.2d at
986.
intimidate, silence and defund District Attorney Stedman and his office
26
92. The purpose of the Declaratory Judgments Act is to “settle
and administered.” See Bayada Nurses, Inc. v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus.,
position that his use of Act 13 funds is not subject to the Lancaster
County Code nor are his expenditure of Act 13 funds subject to audit or
27
96. Accordingly, there exists a clear legal dispute between
that the Court enter judgment in his favor and grant the following
relief:
funds;
28
d. permanently enjoin the Lancaster County Board of
of Act 13 funds;
f. such other and further relief as this Court deems just and
proper.
and administered.” See Bayada Nurses, Inc. v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus.,
29
102. District Attorney Stedman has taken the position that his
§§ 1420, 1620, are not subject to review by the Lancaster County Board
position, insisting they have the power to review the actions of District
County Code.
30
WHEREFORE, Petitioner District Attorney Stedman requests
that the Court enter judgment in his favor and grant the following
relief:
and Lehman;
employment decisions;
e. such other and further relief as this Court deems just and
proper.
31
COUNT III—DECLARATORY RELIEF
(DISTRICT ATTORNEY STEDMAN V. LANCASTER COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONERS PARSONS,
STUCKEY, AND LEHMAN, AND CONTROLLER HURTER)
and administered.” See Bayada Nurses, Inc. v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus.,
those fees and costs already have been budgeted and appropriated by
32
111. The Lancaster County Board of Commissioners and the
advising that they will not approve of the payment of District Attorney
County Code, he will not issue any payment for District Attorney
Stedman’s attorneys’ fees and legal costs absent approval of at least two
that the Court enter judgment in his favor and grant the following
relief:
33
a. declare that, pursuant to basic separation of principles,
payment of his attorneys’ fees and legal costs incurred as a result of this
County Commissioners;
Controller Hurter;
litigation;
34
Controller Hurter from attempting to defund or otherwise limit
litigation;
g. such other and further relief as this Court deems just and
proper.
Respectfully submitted,
35
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Exhibit C
Exhibit D
Exhibit E
Exhibit F
From: Resh, Joanne
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2019 1:41 PM
To: Stedman, Craig <StedmanC@co.lancaster.pa.us>
Subject: FW: Question
From: Gable, Beth
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2019 2:58 PM
To: Resh, Joanne <RESHJ@co.lancaster.pa.us>
Subject: FW: Question
Joanne,
Please see below. Do you have invoices or detail for the PCard transactions from DTF funds for parking in 2018?
Beth Gable
Budget Analyst
IT & Budget Services
2
From: Burkhart, John <JBurkhart@co.lancaster.pa.us>
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2019 1:46 PM
To: Gable, Beth <BGable@co.lancaster.pa.us>
Cc: Evans, Joanna <JoEvans@co.lancaster.pa.us>
Subject: RE: Question
I do not. If this is parking and a PCard purchase it is coming from the DA’s office. DTF’s only parking expense is to the City for spaces at the police station. I know that
some of the ADA parking is paid for out of 6587. You might want to contact Det. Joanne Resh with the County Detective’s office.
From: Gable, Beth
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2019 11:40 AM
To: Burkhart, John <JBurkhart@co.lancaster.pa.us>
Subject: FW: Question
John,
Joanna Evans said you would probably be the person to contact about this. If not, please forward as necessary.
Do you happen to have any invoices or detail on the following PCard transactions that you could send me? Just looking to find out who this parking covers. Thanks!
Beth Gable
Budget Analyst
IT & Budget Services
County of Lancaster
3
150 N. Queen St., Suite 322
Lancaster, PA 17603
(717) 295-5960
This communication, including any attachment, contains information which may be confidential or privileged, and is intended solely for the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended
recipient, please notify the sender at once and delete this message. You are hereby further notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of confidential or privileged material in this message without the
express written approval of the Lancaster County IT Department is strictly prohibited.
4
Exhibit G
Exhibit H
Exhibit I
Exhibit J